Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Part 2: Response to Judyth Baker

I have seen the rest of Judyth Baker's images from her article. I must say that it's rather pathetic. For instance, she claims that all of these guys are James Bookhout. So, this short guy (shorter than Oswald) is Bookhout:

And this tall guy (taller than Oswald) with a taut face is Bookhout:

And this fat-faced guy is Bookhout:

They're all James Bookhout according to her. The man above is Dallas Police Detective Charles N. Dhority. The tall man above has not been identified, but he must have worked for the Dallas PD, and others who used to claim that he was Bookhout have relented. But, how could Bookhout be both taller and shorter than Oswald?

Judyth refuses to recognize the disparity between these images. It's the same back of the head to her:

Can't she see that Ruby's head on the left is narrow? That his hairline in back was more jagged and irregular compared to the neatness and evenness we see on the right? Doesn't she know that the dark coloring of the back of his neck wasn't a suntan; it was scruffy hair growth which the shooter did not have? If those two aren't different, then what does it take to constitute a difference? 

She refuses to recognize the different shape of the heads as seen here:

Again, what does it take to establish different shaped heads if those two aren't different? If you're going to say those are the same, then let's just say that all heads are the same.

Again, she mistakes Dhority for Bookhout at Parkland. She doesn't realize that it was at Parkland. She thought it was in the DPD garage. She thinks that they were loading Oswald into the ambulance at Parkland. 

That is definitely Dhority and not Bookhout. Bookhout didn't even go to Parkland Hospital. And that settles it, does it not?

Then, she wants to bicker about whether these are the same Fedora hat. 

 I never claimed that they were the same hat, just that they were the same man. If Bookhout was going to shoot Oswald as Ruby, then he would have gone to some effort to dress like Ruby, and if it meant getting Ruby's hat or one like it, he would have done so. This is a childish objection.

Then, amazingly, she claims that all these are Bookhout:

One wonders about the state of vision of someone who claims that all these above are the same man.

Then, she is disputing the identification of Tommy Collins.

What this refers to is an ROTC photo from Woodrow Wilson High School in 1931. A tall fellow on the right was mistakenly identified as James Bookhout, until I pointed out that in one version, someone by the name of Tommy Collins autographed it right over that image. That led to the discovery of other images of Tommy, proving that he was the tall figure. Judyth is calling the chin discrepancy that we see above a deal-breaker, but that's just some distortion. It's the huge blow-up of a very small image. on the right. Look: we know from the caption that Tommy Collins is definitely in this picture, and that guy is the only one who comes close. 

 So, Tommy Collins is definitely in there, and the only guy who comes close is the guy I found. And look how well his hair matches the other known image of Tommy Collins:

That is definitely Tommy on the right. It's from the bill of one-act play that involved just three actors, and he was one of them. That is definitely him, Tommy Collins. Well, look how well his hair matches the guy in the middle. He's got the high part on the same side, with the tuft coming down and then the high wavy hair in the middle. It's the same hair, therefore, it's the same guy! It is ridiculous that we are even arguing about this. That is definitely Tommy Collins across the board. 

Then, amazingly, Judyth admits that the Ruby impostor may not be Ruby.

But, wait a second. It's not a matter of mislabeling. The man on the right was definitely proffered as Jack Ruby. There is no doubt about that. He was definitely supposed to be Jack Ruby. So, if that single photo on the right isn't really him, then it is a huge problem which can't be glossed over. It means something was afoot. It means that he was pretending to be Jack Ruby. 

So, if he's not Ruby, you can't gloss over it. It means that something is terribly wrong. It means that there is a farce going on because he is supposed to be Ruby.

Then, she puts up this phony image of Oswald as a boy. It's not him.

They are not the same person. The Oswald of fame was very scrawny as a child. It's very important for people to realize that there are myriad phony images of Oswald.

Then, she seems to accept that this Ruby is wearing sunglasses.

But, she makes an excuse for it, claiming that Ruby did indeed have a pair of tinted glasses on him.

But, we see the glasses in the jacket pocket of the shooter, and they are not tinted. They are clear lenses.

Those are just regular clear glasses. So, what are we to assume? That he also had sunglasses? That he whipped them off at the last second and stashed them somewhere? Where? Why weren't they found? It just isn't plausible; it just isn't reasonable. 

This has reached the point of the ridiculous. Judyth Baker is just grasping at straws. What is apparent to me is that she simply doesn't want the Bookhout scenario to be true. But, it's not about what anybody wants. People need to put aside their wants and just go where the evidence leads them.

The case for James Bookhout being the Garage Shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald is extremely strong, and neither Judyth Baker nor James Norwood even put a dent in the bumper. And that is just the way it is.

The only thing that could possibly overturn the Bookhout conclusion now is if a verifiable, authentic, unassailable image of James Bookhout appears which conflicts with the Garage Shooter. I rate the chance of that happening as very slim. But, I'm waiting.